8 July 2025 | New Delhi
The Supreme Court of India has refused to entertain a plea filed by an MBBS student challenging the termination of their medical college admission, directing the petitioner to first approach the jurisdictional High Court for relief.
The bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice R Mahadevan, observed that the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution is not meant to bypass proper judicial hierarchy, particularly when adequate remedies are available in High Courts under Article 226.
Background: Student Challenged Disqualification from MBBS Course
The student had filed a writ petition directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32, claiming that the termination of admission was arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights, including the Right to Education under Article 21.
The termination reportedly followed alleged discrepancies in documentation or eligibility compliance during admission into an MBBS program, although the precise nature of the dispute was not elaborated upon in the courtroom exchange.
Supreme Court: High Court First Forum for Such Grievances
The bench firmly declined to intervene at this stage, stating:
“Why have you come under Article 32? You have an effective remedy under Article 226. Go to the High Court.”
This reiteration reflects the apex court’s consistent position that Article 32 should be invoked only in cases involving direct and substantial violation of fundamental rights, not as an initial forum for all grievances.
The Court added that the High Court is fully empowered to examine such matters involving academic regulations, admission procedures, and administrative decisions.
Key Takeaways:
• The Supreme Court declined to entertain a student’s plea against MBBS admission cancellation.
• The petitioner was advised to seek remedy before the High Court under Article 226.
• The Court reaffirmed that Article 32 is not a substitute for regular judicial forums.
This judgment aligns with the broader judicial approach emphasizing the principle of judicial hierarchy, urging litigants to first exhaust alternate remedies before knocking on the doors of the Supreme Court.
